In June, the CF Woodford Equity Fund reached its three-year anniversary meeting investors’ return expectations over that time period. However, during July and August several of the fund’s holdings suffered significant share price weakness which has impacted the fund’s performance since. We have always encouraged dialogue with our investors and understandably some have been in touch, not only to express their disappointment, but also to seek answers as to why the fund’s performance has suffered. In the following video, Neil explains events and what they mean for the fund’s strategy…

Healthcare bear market continues

FTSE All Share index sector performance

Two-year bear market in healthcare leaves stocks cheaper than they have been in many years

Source: Atlantic Equities

China has a substantial bad debt problem

China – estimated bad debt problems as % of GDP

Source: The MacroStrategy Partnership

“The short-term performance is painful and is difficult, but it isn’t a permanent loss of capital. I can, and I believe I will, rebuild the performance and rebuild that capital that we’ve lost recently.”

Conversations

Yes its been a little disappointing, and thanks for acknowledging this. Whilst everyone has setbacks with the market, you’ve (we’ve) arguably had more than a fair share in recent times! You clearly believe in your investment strategy and continue to show a strong determination to succeed for us. Keep going….. I’m one (of many I’m sure) who’ll be sticking with you with aspirations for the slightly longer term.

Call me old fashioned but I was always taught, “casual dress, casual mind” I bet Neil didn’t conduct interviews at Invesco in jeans and a shirt with no collar. Some of his due diligence recently has been extremely casual.

You’re old fashioned – however, so am I – I have over the last year tried to attend some client meetings ‘dressed-down’ – for one, it’s harder to get dressed in the mornings in a ‘dressed-down’ but still smart enough for clients meeting, than it is to wear the suit and tie. However, I would never turn up for client meeting, or even a work meeting, dressed like Woodford – I feel it shows disrespect to the audience. Anyway – I’ve sold my holding of all his funds, whilst still in the blue ….. and moved elsewhere. Maybe I should invest in Wranglers (do they still make them).

Honest and true wrt to market focus . China policy come after November will change and chickens will come home to roost as they say . A currency devaluation is the only option they will have left to prevent capital outflow and they will quickly not come the stock market flavour of the month. Neil is right not to follow this silliness and focus on value in our own backyard. It will come back to true valuation and not asset bubble driven QE
The time is close and 2018 will be a key change both globally and local U.K.

Gents ….how reasonnable is it to take 25% of the capital of any given firm?
Even if you wanted to stop loss this line you could not exit it without much more blood to be spilled. Any plans on this ? Appreciate the transparency and aknowledgement of the poor performance but keep fighting. If you dont like a position just cut it.

Agree with Mitch on stop losses. Famed value investor Seth Klarman was once asked about stop losses. He thundered back that we should never use stop losses because it would be a confession that the market knows more about the valuation of a company than the investor does. If we’ve done proper DD, that should not be the case.

I feel sorry for NW as clearly the top management of Provident Financial misled him, and did so on a considerable scale.
PF is obviously wounded but has scope to recover. I am, however, concerned about Astra Zenica, but if I remember rightly he got out of Royal Mail.

Well said Neil
China come end of year will change tack and I think there only way out of their mess is devaluation, with potential dire global impact to markets
True value investing will come back and the market needs to get sensible again on fundamentals and hopefully central bank manipulation, QE QT is not the driver to asset bubbles

I guess this is one of those questions that will not get answered until next months update but both of you seemed to refer to the weight of the holding in PFG in the past tense ,have you reduced as I haven’t seen any news of you doing so ? Glad to see Neil is still confident in his stocks going forward as it seems to me that our turn for growth is just around the corner. I’m still adding at every opportunity.

much appreciate the comments and have overall confidence in Neil’s approach – however I think Neil has not been out much in the ‘ real world ‘ that most financial advisers know . You cannot sack 4,500 motivated debt managers who have a personal relationship with debtors and replace it with IT and expect anything but disaster.

Commendable interview by Neil. I do think ,however, a couple of points still need to be addressed. In terms of Provident Financial, this is a stock that Neil has owned for a very long time -at least the Invesco Funds that he managed certainly owned it in 2010 and it may go back longer. From 2010 to its height the price increased by over 300%; although the price had come off a bit by the time it reported 2016 numbers in February 2017 , it was still then trading at an historic p/e of 16.5 times and a market cap to tangible book value of 6.6x. All this for a sub prime lender. Could this really be considered a value situation? Was there no point before June 2017 that Neil considered reducing the holding on the grounds of valuation?
As someone considering WPCT for clients, my other concern relates to Prothena. What is the essence of the value proposition here? Sure, the opportunities must be enormous but they clearly come with huge risk. Why are you apparently by far the largest shareholder? Prothena is over 15% of WPCT but in monetary terms the larger holding is in the Equity Income Fund. If you do get outflows from this fund on the back of recent performance, how will you manage Prothena ; sell down so depressing the value of WPCT or let it rise to what may be an uncomfortable level in the Equity Income Fund?

You are right, our holding period in Provident Financial pre-dates the foundation of Woodford Investment Management by a number of years. It had, until recently, performed very well thanks to the growth of Vanquis, Moneybarn and Satsuma, alongside the stable, cash generative household consumer credit division. We had expected (and indeed continue to expect) further long-term growth from the first three of those businesses and believed that, as a whole, the valuation of the business was undemanding in the context of that growth. Clearly, events in the consumer credit division have undermined that view but it should be remembered that those three other divisions are unaffected by what has happened.

Neil is often mistakenly termed a ‘value’ fund manager but not all stocks we invest in have typical ‘value’ characteristics. Our focus on fundamentals and valuation can sometimes lead us towards higher valuation businesses, as long as the characteristics of that business and its future growth prospects are not, in our view, reflected in its share price.

Finally on Prothena, our spotlight on the company, written last year, is worth a read (https://woodfordfunds.com/words/insights/wpct-october-2016/). We can’t, of course, directly answer your question about trading and fund flows. But if the fund were to experience outflows, we are confident that there is sufficient liquidity to manage them appropriately, without pulling the portfolio out of shape.

Excellent video interview with Neil. I found it highly informative, insightful.

A note from JP Morgan Cazenove a few days ago assigned “zero value” to the consumer credit division of PF. Is this also your worst-case scenario? When you do a forward-looking analysis of a company, do you come up with a range of outlooks or target values, say from optimistic to pessimistic, depending upon input assumptions?

If you truly believe that the original analysis is right then, instead of selling, you should buy when the stock price tanks. Examples exist in Resources, who bought Glencor at 56P in 2016 and hold at 360 today, similarly Kumba which has risen from R27 to R211 or Apple from $96 to $161, all over the last couple of years. The volatility of the markets provide opportunity for the big betters as opposed top those hold such a multiplicity of shares that the variance of one makes little difference to portfolio. Either a day trader or an investor, long term? Someone is buying Provident, AstraZ and today the tobacco companies and will look back and see the benefits in time of not running with the crowd.

I am not sure how it can be said that the fund is now defensively positioned or immune to a general downturn following a market collapse. I am afraid that he has simply got himself into a pickle with some bad stock-picking. it all very well saying the fund will come good in the end, but in the meantime he is losing out on solid returns from some of the companies which he has sold over the past 2 years.

Just a general observation but if you were around in 1997-2000 a lot of people said the same thing regarding value-businesses. They instead made 100% annual returns on tech stocks….. not sure any of them are around today though to tell you how that turned out……
What Neil’s trying to say in the video is that he wants to make a market beating return – and critically – stay in areas where the market will perform long term. You may triple down on cyclical mining stocks and car manufacturers now and make more money, but they are not the way to make profit over a 5-10+ year period.

I am much more interested in preservation of capital and reasonable rates of return, personally. This is now the second longest bull market in history already.

Just watched Neils latest video. Lots of common sense and a clear demonstration of sound economic knowledge. I believe that the value will be recovered by xmas as the geopolitical stuff subsides and investors start to look for real value. UK bank shares (Lloyds and Barclays) will increase by 35 – 50% by the January 2018 reporting period. Remember where you heard it first!!

Thank you for publishing this interview. It is truly fascinating to learn about the though processes that go into running a large investment fund.

History has shown time and again that even the greatest winners can make significant mistakes along the way. It is often the case that big mistakes are when there is the most to learn – thereby presenting an opportunity to improve future performance.

In terms of (at least short-term) value destruction, I imagine the PF share collapse must have been one of Neil’s worst moments as a seasoned fund manager. So my question is, is there anything that Neil and the team can take away as valuable ‘lessons learned’ from what has transpired?

It is interesting to learn that the world’s biggest sovereign fund is getting out of the East and emerging markets and putting money in the UK. As an old colleague of mine used to say “its not a loss unless you crystallize it”.

Neil follows what Warren Buffett once said

“Games are won by players who focus on the playing field –- not by those whose eyes are glued to the scoreboard.”

There are many mid- and small-caps that have performed well that have no exposure to China.

While the equity income fund’s performance has been mildly disappointing, I’m more concerned about the Patient Capital Trust. I think some of the investment decisions have been based on spin and optimism rather than substance and due diligence.

I fully understand that these are mainly early-stage businesses and disappointments and failures are to be expected. But in such a risky environment it’s essential to be selective and minimise all known risks so the only ones remaining are the unknown, or rather the unknowable.

I thought this was an income fund? A short term dip in capital valuation due to market over reaction/jitters shouldn’t be a concern if you’re working to an appriopriate investment horizon. I’ve topped up my investment.

Agreed – most of the ultra rich who buy yachts could easily afford to buy ten. If market disaster hits they could probably afford four or five… also I read an article that suggested from 2008-2017 the rich actually got even richer for those that stayed invested. A lot of these types of families have been invested for generations anyway

I would remind anyone who cannot remember, Neil is the man who did not invest in Internet startups in the late 90’s and was one of the few fund managers not to catch a cold on the crash of Internet stocks then.
He was criticised heavily at the time for not following the flock, but was proved right and was left standing when many were on the floor.
Trust his judgement,

I have lost about 10k on patient capital BUT saw purple bricks in the portfoglio and fancied the idea so invested and earned about 20k so it worked out O.K.
The idea that regulations had obscured the information on quoted companies rminded me of Enron.I am not sure what you cannot find out but it seems to me its all a bit of a gamble.
I worked for years in the Pharma industry and have seen many drugs fail so I know how difficult it is to find a blockbuster.It is not an i ndustry I would be happy to put much money into these days because it is just not possible to find novel compounds now without luck and new fundamental research.Most of these new drugs are just spin offs..I am suprised you guys did not invest in IQE , I thought that would be right up your street.

I complained once in the past that these posts were PR puff. And, I am sorry to say: this is absolutely the worst I have seen. The poor performance of the fund and of WPCT in the last year or so is not the result of credit conditions in China. As my grandmother would have said: ‘Pull the other one. It has bells on it.’ A lot of money was lost on the binary bet on Circassia. That had nothing to do with credit conditions in China. A lot of money has been lost on Allied Minds. That has nothing to do with credit conditions in China. A lot of money has been lost on PFG – and more still by the decision to double down on that investment after the first of the profit warnings. That has nothing to do with the credit conditions in China. All of this lost money has to do with (a) picking the wrong companies and (b) owning so much of the issued capital of those wrong companies that, even if you wanted to get out of them when the information on which you had based the investment changes, you could not do so even if you wanted. You cannot sell a quarter of a FTSE100 company without moving the market catastrophically against yourself. Q: so why all the talk about credit conditions in China? A: to pretend this is all the product of the same contrarian wisdom as the wise decision to stay out of tech stocks in the dotcom boom. But it is not. This is about poor decisions and over-weighted investments, This blog is now insulting your intelligence, and mine. And it is frankly embarrassing to see so many of you fluttering your eyelashes and simpering your blushing thanks for the condescension.

That about says it for me too. So many naive mistakes… buying debt-laden AA from the PE sharks… buying RR all the way down and then selling at the bottom… owning so much of PF that you’re illiquid… buying Game Digital, which had already gone bust once for good reason, then selling out for a pittance to Mike Ashley… Drax power, a subsidy-dependent political football… NWBO run by someone implicated in Enron… the warning signs were there in all cases and you missed every one!

I second Mark here.
Although Neil’s assertion of China may be correct and thus his decision to not join the crowded trade of China boom, the underperformance is not just about missing the China related stocks but more on missteps in picking failures.

Cyclicals is by definition cyclical and thus I really wonder whether a large assignment to that sector is beneficial to the fund performance.

Well to be fair, it’s just normal that public companies (the listed ones) make available the same amount of information to the all market participants at the same time.
Otherwise, it would be unfair to the investors as it could lead to insider dealing. And that s a crime and Neil perfectly knows that.

Question though, how did some hedge funds were so massively short of Provident Financial just before the collapse of the stock…

There is a wide spectrum of views on every stock in the market and there are some large short positions in several stocks in which we are invested. In fact, if our policy was to not invest in a stock where there was a short position in existence, the portfolio would be pretty much entirely in cash.

In this instance, many of the shorts in Provident Financial had been in place long before the problems emerged in the consumer credit division, the thesis being, I believe, more macro-economic than micro-economic, with an expectation that credit quality would deteriorate as the UK economy faltered. That scenario has not unfolded but those shorts have in this instance been right for a different reason.

Of course it would be ridiculous to never invest in a stock that had a short position against it somewhere. However in the case of Provident Financial it was quite well known that hedge funds had large short positions in place. It would be appropriate to realise that they were correct and were doing their research better than WEI. I don’t think dismissing their reasoning as wrong, as you apparently knew what their thesis was, and claiming they were right for a random other reason, implying they got lucky, is the correct conclusion to draw.

Neil explained that he avoided market ‘themes’; but how can you mitigate the risk of broader trends? If 50% of the market are holding all stocks regardless of fundamentals but because they are in an index, what happens if these sell-off en mass? ETFs etc make no assessment at the company level and so all prices are impacted (not just tech stocks for example) and the positions are huge.

It is possible to deliver positive returns in an environment in which the broader market is falling. Neil has proven that in the past. There is also a distinction to be made between passive investing and ETFs. Some ETFs do replicate an index agnostically but sometimes those indexes are very narrow. Apparently, there are now more indexes than there are stocks in the US! Furthermore, some ETFs are becoming increasingly complex and esoteric, with the aim of giving investors access to certain themes or characteristics – such as low volatility or high beta. It remains to be seen how these products will perform in challenging market conditions but, by definition, they are not really passive investment vehicles.

What a great interview – fantastically candid questions and answers – I think each and every one of us can feel your pain Neil.. On the plus side of things, we know you have been through similar situations before, so I am guessing most of us here are confident in your ability to steer through these turbulent waters where there does appear to be a very marked disparity between underlying performance/ valuation opportunities versus stock market favour.. By sticking to your guns you are putting your head on the block, but I for one respect you for doing so. However, I think it needs to be said that the next 3-6 months will be the most testing time yet for the Woodford Equity Income fund – make or break time if you will… I have long been hearing advice that I should just move to a low cost FTSE tracker fund, but I have stuck with Neil now for 10 years due to a real belief in his long-term-focused strategy – fundamentals/ performance overlaid with undervaluation. And to be fair until 2016, this has generally played out to be a winning strategy over the long term. BUT: I am seeing the performance of his fund over its entire life since June 2014 now get perilously close to what the FTSE tracker funds have achieved over that same time period – at a much lower cost. However, I am still very confident that Neil’s approach will see the investment performance of the fund pull-up again in the next 3-6 months (which I am assuming is the time period he refers to in the interview as the ‘relatively near term’). Having said all that though, if he has not re-established significant headroom over FTSE tracker funds by March 2018, I may have to reconsider. But my instinct based on Neil’s track record and the way the market moves tells me things will look a lot rosier then! In the meantime – keep your chin up Neil, I for one would not want your job right now!

Chin up Neil – always better to stick with a long-term strategy than rush around like a headless chicken trying to call the top and bottom of the market. It’s been a bad summer but all seasoned investors know that you have to take the lows as well as the highs. If it were easy, everyone would be able to do it. Very few people can do it as well as you do. I am a long-term investor in your funds and have no plans to move money out. In fact, I suspect this is an opportunity to buy more …

The uk is heading for a prolonged downturn, its a low wage low productivity country, wealth creating industrial powerhouse it isnt, the effects of brexit fiasco and dire political leadership with a credit junky population are about to kick in. I would be much more worried about the UK situation than credit in china, iv been hearing the same thing re china for 12 years. Holdings in fully valued house builders? Huge positions in small UK facing stocks, impossible to liquidate if the market tanks, loads of tiny pharma companies and start ups….UK banks like lloyds heavily exposed to UK mortgages, i dont think this is anything to do with china, it just looks like a fairly poor collection of fragile UK facing stocks, and far too many holdings to keep an eye on, as evidenced by recent events.

by chance do you know or work with any Chinese?
the ones i know and meet want to get their money out and the uk is a safe heaven for them compared to china.
If you’re so sure it’s heading fro a down turn you must be shorting the market right??

…really you know lots of chinese spiriting their money out of China do you…i doubt that….no I havnt been shorting the market, yet, my main investments have been in Hsbc and Standard, Ferrexpo Vod Glencore and Kaz, pharma in general and tobacco…some internet stocks, the usual suspects asos and boohoo and for funds Terry Smith and Lin’ Tra’ and some european trackers…..all have done very nicely thankyou, I was in this fund but exited when I saw Glaxo had been sold and noticed the size of some of the positions in the likes of Redde….hope that helps. As for shorting, pretty soon I think housebuilders will be a great short….Barratt in 07/08 went from 12 quid to under a pound….may well be revisting that soon.. Good luck, if you are invested in UK facing stocks you may need it, yet another casualty today, Greene King. I notice even PB has started to come off.

Watch purple bricks very closely. In the same way forum chat by agents told the real pv story, insiders say the “disrupter” story about pb isnt winning in a buisness that is all about service and local knowledge. The uk business isnt working well yet, so throwing money at US and Oz creates a “story” but is it ever going to have real usp as a business?

As it happens i do, work, live and neighbours with many in central London. One is even buying her 3rd overpriced flat and it’s not her money. Interesting to see how they do it now capital controls are so much harder. But yea they see the UK as a safe heaven and if you’ve heard different they most likely don’t have that much money.
Surprised you own HSBC given terry smith does not think much of it.
Oh yes boohoo and fevertree have done great over the last 18months but their p/e are too high now i think and their is big money moving into online I think will high boohoo. asos will be ok and fevertree will be taken over by coke or someone. but still a down turn anywhere will send such high p/e’s down

…why would I follow everything Terry Smith says? Only an idiot doesnt think for themselves. Also I take profits, I bought a serious six figure sum of hsbc the week after Brexit, about 4.70 I think…for the massive divi really, I didnt know which way the stock was going….I sold them for 712, they then went back to 6.50 where I bought them again, collected a few good divi’s, then sold at 7.40, they went up to 7.70 so I should have held my nerve, I also have sold out of boohoo, I bought at 40p, Im not sure they are really worth anything much, just a good momentum stock. Why this obsession with the Chinese?? Its crazy, it wouldnt stop people buying UK stocks if they were confident about the economy, they arrnt because there isnt much reason to be. It isnt a fluke how TS funds has done so well, its brilliant stock picking….and he doesnt have a huge amount of stuff geared towards China either to dispel that myth, and its a small portfolio, and they watch in in minute detail every hour of every day. Your post doesnt really make any sense and I probably need to buy you a dictionary…!

Neil, Terry Smith puts his money where his mouth is. How much are you invested in your own funds? Why no transparency here? I’m sure a number of investors in your fund would really appreciate an answer. Looking forward to hearing from you on this.

Mr Woodford has gone on record in the past to say that – apart from his home, his personal possessions, and his interest in WIM, the fund management business itself, his entire net worth is invested in the the Equity Income Fund and in WPCT. I have been critical of Mr Woodford and of this blog in an earlier post. But I don’t think you can fairly criticise him for not having the courage of his convictions, or for not putting his money where his mouth is. The problem, if anything, is that he has had rather too much conviction in several companies which we can now see did not deserve it.

Reading the comments below, it amazes me how these amateur fund managers are queueing up to display their ignorance in public. Comments about losing value relative to the index and only picking winners without losers is pure ignorance for a conviction fund. I trust you’ll keep investing for the long term in the way you always have. 12 month underperformance is irrelevant, but I’ll be checking on you after 5 years! The short termists should go and invest elsewhere. I guess the mea culpa video is an attempt to keep them on board, but personally I wouldn’t bother. Sacrifice some management fees, ignore the short term pain and the good money will stay with you. Keep up the good work.

Mr Barnett, Your comment is quite offensive, and arrogantly ignorant. By “amateur fund managers”, I assume you are referring to individuals (such as I) who have expressed the view that some poor investment decisions have been made. Since Mr Woodford himself, in this very post, accepts precisely that criticism, your complaint makes very little sense. It makes even less sense when the complaint by many (including myself) is the synthetic attempt by thr PR department at WIM to claim that TYR losses on companies such as PFG have something – indeed, anything – to do with the credit crisis in mainland China. I assume that what you would have me and others do is entirely to switch off any critical faculties we might possess – however modest they may be – and unquestionably accept whatever we are told. That may be your view of wisdom. It is not mine, and it never will be. If that is your attitude, so be it. I personally regard it as ignorant and foolish. But regardless, please do not insult those who wish to apply their critical faculties to their investment decisions. We are not ignorant to want to do so. And it is arrogant of you to insist that we have not enough intelligence to have the right to express an opinion. Indeed, the opinion which you yourslef express seems to me to be the ignorant one – that just because WIM tells you the credit conditions in China have caused Allied Minds to crash in value, it must be true. It is not. And – please – do not tell me I am too stupid to possibly be right about that. That would be offensive. And wrong.

Mark, nowhere in the video does Neil say that he made “poor investment decisions”. He admits that things have not gone as expected over the past few months but continues to believe in the portfolios and retains the courage of his convictions. Every investor should know that Mr Market can throw a tantrum at any time. The task for Neil W is to stick to the process that has made him so successful over such a long period.

Both Buffett and Woodford avoided the tech bubble of the late 90s and were roundly criticised for it at the time – until sanity prevailed and their approaches were confirmed as valid.

I agree with Mr Porter above that Neil is the professional in this space and the rest of us are (enthusiastic) amateurs by comparison. We could all mention a successful stock we’ve owned that Neil did not own, but his success over the log haul is what sets him apart. It’s no insult to us, just a statement of reality.

i AM OU T OF HERE .SOLD MY HOLDING.ITS SIMPLE TO MAKE 10% IN LAST 12 MONTHS MY WOODFORD FUND DOWN 7% MY SHARES BOUGHT THIS YEAR:AZN SHARES UP 20% BURFORD CAP 100% JULIUS BAER 30% EVEN GLENCORE UP 20%THIS YEAR I’M A FARM LABOURER WHATS YOUR JOB MR WOODFORD?? GIVE ME YOUR FUND PROVIDENT LAST YEAR OR PREVIOUS AND THEY HAD THEIR RUN. I HELD AND SOLD BUT YOU HUNG ON WHY? NOT BEEN CHECKING YOU OUT RECENTLY YOUR FUND IS THE LAST I WILL HOLD. TOO MUCH TIME IN TUSCANY I VENTURE

Its now completely beyond me why anyone wants to pays a fund manager several hundred £Ks a year to perform as this lot do. I dont give a stuff if he wears a skirt if he’d show results. Respect people by wearing a suit? I wear a smock and suck a straw but my pension funds outperform most public quoted Oiks Its etc . Now I’m off down the cow shed to ask Mable where I should invest now.
Stop press-She said more corn.

What are the risks?

The value of the fund and any income from it may go down as well as up, so you may get back less than you invested

Past performance cannot be relied upon as a guide to future performance

The annual management charge is charged to capital, so the income of the fund may be higher but capital growth may be restricted or capital may be eroded

The fund may invest in overseas securities and be exposed to currencies other than pound sterling

The fund may invest in unquoted securities, which may be less liquid and more difficult to realise than publicly traded securities

Important information

Before investing, you should read the Key Investor Information Document (KIID) for the fund, and the Prospectus which, along with our terms and conditions, can be obtained from the downloads page or from our registered office. If you have a financial adviser, you should seek their advice before investing. Woodford Investment Management Ltd is not authorised to provide investment advice.

Woodford Patient Capital Trust plc is incorporated in England and Wales, company number 09405653. Registered as an investment company under section 833 of the Companies Act 2006. Registered address Beaufort House, 51 New North Road, Exeter, EX4 4EP.

The Woodford Funds (Ireland) ICAV (the “Fund”) has appointed as Swiss Representative Oligo Swiss Fund Services SA, Av. Villamont 17, 1005 Lausanne, Switzerland. The Fund’s Swiss paying agent is Neue Helvetische Bank AG. All fund documentation including, Prospectus, Key Investor Information Documents, Instrument of Incorporation and financial reports may be obtained free of charge from the Swiss Representative in Lausanne. The place of performance and jurisdiction for all shares distributed in or from Switzerland is at the registered office of the Swiss Representative. Fund prices can be found at www.fundinfo.com.